Catch rule and Instant replay are killing the NFL

[oaken1]

Above is the definition of a straw man argument. Look it up.

...dbs

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

the difference is I dont care what a straw man argument is... I have two ***** to give today and I aint giving up either of them over that.

but if you look back over the discussion,..and see there how I am clearly correct and you are horrendously wrong?? see that??
Thats the joy of sports that is being destroyed by the use of replay.

 

[Russ Smith]

I'd actually prefer they go into the replay process without considering the call on the field.

That's my issue too.They take a guess live and then demand conclusive proof to overturn it, instead of using the replay the make the best guess.Lots of times the replay looks like the live call was wrong, but it's not 100% so they stick with the original call which looks wrong.

this one I don't get at all, it has to be a TD

 

[Vermont Maverick]

Neither the catch rule nor instant replay are killing the NFL. Raise your hand if you are going to stop watching for either of those reasons.

When you slow it down, that was not a catch. The WR had not pinned the ball to his body when one of his feet lifted off the ground. It was in one open hand but not possessed.

The rule is not that hard, people make it hard for the sake of conversation. There’s always going to be close calls. In a game where the rules are catered to the offense, I see no problem with CLEARLY demonstrating you posses the ball.

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

I watched the Ravens game.... 6-7 times a Raven defender was lined up WELL beyond the neutral zone... Not called once... On one play....the DE's head was almost a foot beyond the backside of the ball!

These guys are too dam old to be ref's..... Post 45 should be automatic retirement for officials IMO, maybe allow exceptions to phenomenal officials who stay in great shape, and don't blow several calls per game.

 

[Southpaw]

Neither the catch rule nor instant replay are killing the NFL. Raise your hand if you are going to stop watching for either of those reasons.

When you slow it down, that was not a catch. The WR had not pinned the ball to his body when one of his feet lifted off the ground. It was in one open hand but not possessed.

The rule is not that hard, people make it hard for the sake of conversation. There’s always going to be close calls. In a game where the rules are catered to the offense, I see no problem with CLEARLY demonstrating you posses the ball.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I watched the Ravens game.... 6-7 times a Raven defender was lined up WELL beyond the neutral zone... Not called once... On one play....the DE's head was almost a foot beyond the backside of the ball!

These guys are too dam old to be ref's..... Post 45 should be automatic retirement for officials IMO, maybe allow exceptions to phenomenal officials who stay in great shape, and don't blow several calls per game.

Elder abuse alert.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Wish they would've micro-managed Santonio Holme's super bowl non catch to see his foot was on top of his other foot and not in bounds.

 

[Mitch]

Wish they would've micro-managed Santonio Holme's super bowl non catch to see his foot was on top of his other foot and not in bounds.

Right on!

 

[Dback Jon]

Neither the catch rule nor instant replay are killing the NFL. Raise your hand if you are going to stop watching for either of those reasons.

When you slow it down, that was not a catch. The WR had not pinned the ball to his body when one of his feet lifted off the ground. It was in one open hand but not possessed.

The rule is not that hard, people make it hard for the sake of conversation. There’s always going to be close calls. In a game where the rules are catered to the offense, I see no problem with CLEARLY demonstrating you posses the ball.

I've stopped watching games with bad Reffing crews. Know many who have done the same


The catch rule is not in line with other NFL rules. If it was, why do so many people have an issue with it?


The replay at the end of the first half of the patriots bills game just was exercise and why we play needs to be limited you there a time limit or we need more cameras it was ridiculous to overturn that touchdown after what five minutes of looking at it

 

[Dback Jon]

Wish they would've micro-managed Santonio Holme's super bowl non catch to see his foot was on top of his other foot and not in bounds.

If it had been a Cardinals WR they would have

 

[Mitch]

I've stopped watching games with bad Reffing crews. Know many who have done the same


The catch rule is not in line with other NFL rules. If it was, why do so many people have an issue with it?


The replay at the end of the first half of the patriots bills game just was exercise and why we play needs to be limited you there a time limit or we need more cameras it was ridiculous to overturn that touchdown after what five minutes of looking at it

Even the Boston Globe wrote a whole article about how the officials robbed the Bills of that TD.

One of the best lines in that article is that if 10 out of 10 guys at a bar can see within 3 minutes that it was a catch---why can't the NFL officials in relatively the same amount of time and accuracy.

 

[Dback Jon]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...rning-point/wVq6atnvRIkWlvVcARLxlL/story.html

 

[cardncubfan]

Even the Boston Globe wrote a whole article about how the officials robbed the Bills of that TD.

One of the best lines in that article is that if 10 out of 10 guys at a bar can see within 3 minutes that it was a catch---why can't the NFL officials in relatively the same amount of time and accuracy.

I just watched the video of it. It looks like he only had one foot touch in bounds. Is that why they ruled it incomplete?

Merry Christmas Walter.

 

[cardncubfan]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...rning-point/wVq6atnvRIkWlvVcARLxlL/story.html

This article says he had two feet down. I didn't see his left foot touch in bounds.


Merry Christmas Jon.

 

[cardncubfan]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Mitch]

I just watched the video of it. It looks like he only had one foot touch in bounds. Is that why they ruled it incomplete?

Merry Christmas Walter.

I guess the question was whether Benjamin had secured the catch when both feet were clearly touching. It's a matter of split seconds. The thing is, even when the catch was secured there wasn't enough visual evidence to prove his second foot did not touch the turf.

Merry Christmas to you and your family, cardncubfan.

 

[cardncubfan]

I guess the question was whether Benjamin had secured the catch when both feet were clearly touching. It's a matter of split seconds. The thing is, even when the catch was secured there wasn't enough visual evidence to prove his second foot did not touch the turf.

Merry Christmas to you and your family, cardncubfan.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation Mitch. Not enough visual to overturn the call.

 

[Mitch]

Got it. Thanks for the explanation Mitch. Not enough visual to overturn the call.

Plus. from the back angle it appears that a little turf rubber arose from the back toe. Very slight but noticeable.

 

[Mitch]

This begs the question that the NFL might want to reconsider the one foot in bounds rule the colleges adhere to. The main reason why i think they should are that it makes it much easier to officiate and that it helps toward player safety. Player safety is of greater importance, imo, especially when you combine the two feet with having to secure the catch all the way through the ground.

 

[JeffGollin]

All I know is that - when I surf the Sunday Ticket schedule grid in search of a real game that is actually going on, all I can find - on every channel - are a bunch of zebra types "holding meetings."

I don't care who's right or wrong; all I know is that it slows everything up and substitutes middle-aged guys looking at screens instead of the action of a real live game.

Fix it.

 

[Mainstreet]

One of the problems I see is there is an inconsistency that the ground cannot cause a fumble for a running back yet a receiver can have control of a pass but if he hits the ground and loses control, it's an incomplete pass.

I think the same rules should apply for both. It drives me crazy when a receiver catches the ball, has control, the ground knocks it loose and it is called an incomplete pass.

 

[Dback Jon]

Got it. Thanks for the explanation Mitch. Not enough visual to overturn the call.

That is what the issue is. No way to clearly overturn.

 

[GatorAZ]

I just watched the video of it. It looks like he only had one foot touch in bounds. Is that why they ruled it incomplete?

Merry Christmas Walter.

Yes. Once he brought the ball into his body he only had one foot down.

 

[gimpy]

You have to bring the ball into your body for it to be a catch? Haven't seen the replay.

 

[GatorAZ]

You have to bring the ball into your body for it to be a catch? Haven't seen the replay.

If you watch the replay he stabs it with with one hand then bobbles it into his body and secures it with two hands.

 

[Mitch]

You have to bring the ball into your body for it to be a catch? Haven't seen the replay.

No. Two hands secure on the ball with control (1 or 2 hands) through the ground and two feet in bounds.

What's making these plays more difficult to judge are the slo-mo replays. We are talking nano-seconds to determine a secured catch. In real time, it's such a great catch by Benjamin.